Asia/Barnaul clock

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description disclosed that 'Task text discarded' and that it returns connection methods, which gives some indication of processing behavior. However, it does not explain what happens to other input parameters or the nature of the connection methods (e.g., URLs, API keys). Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly separates the main action from additional notes. No redundant information is present, and the structure is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on the expected output format, error handling, or how the returned connection methods should be used. Given that the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, this missing context makes it harder for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and integrate it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema includes descriptions for all 9 parameters, each explaining the parameter's purpose and often noting side effects (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). This provides strong semantics. However, the tool description itself does not clarify how these parameters map to the overall task of finding a gateway, leaving integration details to the user.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to find a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice. It also specifies that it returns connection methods. However, the term 'tool gateway' is somewhat vague, and the description doesn't precisely scope what types of gateways are included, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternative tools or conditions for selection. Users must infer from the examples (weather, search, etc.) when this meta-tool is appropriate, which is insufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The only behavioral note is 'No browser is launched,' which hints at a non-destructive check but does not explain side effects, return values, or what 'can be opened' means in practice. With no annotations provided, this sparse disclosure is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single brief sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not break down the tool's behavior, inputs, or outputs, making it too terse to be useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the parameters affect the result, or what 'ok' means. An agent cannot infer correct usage from this alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. Terms like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'public weather hint' suggest a broader validation tool, but the description does not unify them. The descriptions add little clarity about how each parameter contributes to the check.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Check whether a URL can be opened' but immediately clarifies 'No browser is launched,' which is contradictory. The actual function appears to be a generic shape checker for multiple input types, as evidenced by unrelated parameters like city, timezone, and query. The description does not clearly convey what the tool actually does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The only behavioral hint is 'Expression discarded,' which suggests the input is not persisted, but it does not clarify side effects, return behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not adequately disclose what the tool does beyond that one phrase.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and contains no redundant wording; the two sentences are tightly packed. However, brevity comes at the cost of critical missing information, though the dimension focuses on efficiency rather than completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With nine unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to give an agent enough context. It does not explain what 'discarded' means operationally, what the tool returns, or why the listed parameters are needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although each parameter has a schema description, none of the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to arithmetic evaluation. The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters and fails to explain how any of them map to the claimed 'a+b' operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter, making the actual purpose ambiguous. The phrase 'Expression discarded' further confuses whether the tool returns a result or performs a side-effect-free check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of any sibling tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable inputs, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency, but it only discloses that page content is not stored. It fails to mention network behavior, side effects, error conditions, or the fact that the many listed parameters appear to be ignored, which could mislead an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that state the core function and a key behavioral guarantee. It earns its place, though the massive irrelevant parameter list makes the overall definition feel bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for practical use: there is no output schema, no required parameter, no explanation of the output format for host/scheme/status, and no guidance on error handling. The presence of nine optional parameters with unrelated descriptions leaves an agent with little confidence about how to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose: ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, and query have nothing to do with returning host, scheme, or HTTP status. The url parameter is the only plausible input, and with all parameters optional, there is no clear instruction on what to pass or why the others exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear outcome—return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL—and adds that page content is not stored, but it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url. The presence of nine unrelated optional parameters in the schema further muddies what the tool actually does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The statement about page content not being stored hints at a use case but does not explicitly explain when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The only behavioral note is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but does not disclose what the tool does with the input, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. Without annotations, the description should provide more transparency, but it is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the tool works, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the tool does with these diverse parameters (URL, city, JSON, path, etc.) or what a 'compatibility' check involves, leaving major gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Each parameter has a brief schema description, but they are generic and do not clarify the tool's purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check,' but what is a 'shape check'? The descriptions do not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's functionality, leaving the agent uncertain about how to fill them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague. It does not state what kind of classification is performed, what 'compatibility' means, or what output is produced. The verb 'show' is weak and the resource is undefined, making it difficult to understand the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no indication of when to use this tool compared to its siblings (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). The description does not differentiate it from alternatives or explain in which scenarios it is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that it does not return WHOIS/ownership data and that several parameters are 'discarded,' but it never explicitly says whether the operation is read-only or what side effects or failure modes exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence containing only the core operation and a key exclusion. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has nine parameters and many sibling tools, but the description does not explain how to invoke it, what the returned labels look like, or what to do with the extra unrelated parameters. This leaves major gaps despite the minimal schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no direct parameter semantics; the schema's parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the stated hostname-splitting purpose, but this dimension concerns the description beyond the schema, which neither improves nor worsens the score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation ('split a hostname into labels') and a resource, and adds a useful negative qualifier ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling URL/hostname tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of full clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no sibling tools are named. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' only implies a narrow negative case, not a practical trigger or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'return status only' but does not state that it ignores most parameters, that HEAD is non-destructive, or any side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The schema descriptions mention discarding parameters, but that is not in the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff. However, it is so sparse that it misses important usage and behavioral context, so it is not a perfect 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain why there are so many diverse parameters (city, timezone, json, etc.) or how they relate to the HEAD request, nor does it clarify what 'status' means (HTTP code?). The sibling list suggests this is a multi-purpose tool, but the description only covers the URL aspect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only refers to URL, while the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. It does not compensate for the coverage gap because there is no gap, but it also adds nothing extra.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('HEAD') and resource ('a public URL'), and says it returns status only, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, nor does it explain the purpose of the many non-URL parameters in the schema, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context for expected use cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It is a bare statement of what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minimal behavioral note. However, it does not disclose output format, errors, side effects, or any permissions, and with no annotations provided, the burden is fully on the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief (two sentences), which is concise, but it omits critical information such as which parameter is the URL or what the result shape is. It is structured simply but lacks necessary content for usability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no required ones, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify how to invoke the tool, what input is expected, or what output is produced, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), they are generic and irrelevant to the stated tool purpose (e.g., 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint'). The description fails to map any parameter to the Figma URL input, making the parameters effectively meaningless for execution.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a verb ('Parse') and a resource ('Figma file URL'), but the parameter schema contains many unrelated fields (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'ref') with no indication of which one corresponds to the Figma URL, creating confusion about the actual purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape', nor any conditions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (no disk access), and the schema descriptions note that several values are 'discarded after check,' implying no side effects. However, there is no mention of return values or failure behavior, and no annotations are present to fill the gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and to the point, but it omits important context such as what constitutes a 'safe' path and how the tool relates to its sibling validators. The briefness is not backed by sufficient detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, example, or explanation of how the input parameters map to the tool's purpose. The tool appears complete only for a minimal 'check path' use case, but the mismatch between the description and the input schema leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although all 9 parameters have descriptions, most are unrelated to checking a file path (e.g., ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) and their descriptions do not explain how they contribute to the tool's purpose. This creates confusion rather than providing meaningful semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a path looks safe, and explicitly notes no disk access. However, 'safe' is somewhat vague and the input schema includes many unrelated properties, which slightly muddies the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/validation tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape). The only behavioral hint is 'no disk access,' which is not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'via Open-Meteo' without explaining side effects, external network calls, output format, or error behavior. The schema descriptions mention discarded inputs, but the main description does not clarify overall behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and contains no fluff. However, it is so terse that it omits essential operational context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the returned coordinates, what the output looks like, or when the tool should be invoked.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, those descriptions do not connect to the stated purpose of returning coordinates for a place. With no required parameters, it is unclear whether to pass city, query, path, or any other field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase rather than a complete instruction, and it does not state which input identifies the place. It mentions latitude and longitude via Open-Meteo, but the nine-parameter schema makes the actual purpose ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as weather-hint, timezone, or normalize-url. The description neither states use cases nor contrasts with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions parsing and does not disclose that many schema parameters (e.g., city, zone) are discarded or ignored, which is a notable behavioral omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words, directly stating the tool's function. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool's purpose is simple, but the parameter list includes many unrelated optional parameters (e.g., timezone, query, JSON) that are not reconciled with the stated GitHub URL parsing function. No output schema is provided, leaving the return format unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, and several parameters (e.g., city, feed) appear unrelated to the stated purpose without further explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'parse' and the specific resource 'GitHub URL', with an explicit output of 'owner and repo'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'normalize-url' for general URL handling. The purpose is implicit from the name, but no usage guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or data handling. The parameter descriptions mention that certain values are 'discarded after the shape check' or 'discarded after the length check', which hints at validation behavior but is not explained in the tool description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence), but the brevity sacrifices clarity. The phrase 'Titles discarded' is cryptic and the lack of any parameter explanation makes the description inefficient for understanding the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or return value description is provided. The description says it counts stories but does not specify the output format. The parameter list is irrelevant to the purpose, and there is no mention of how the tool interacts with Hacker News data, making the context highly incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes descriptions for all parameters, but they are completely unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The tool description provides no context to connect these parameters to counting Hacker News stories, leaving semantics entirely unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Count current Hacker News front-page stories'), but the phrase 'Titles discarded' is confusing and the parameter list is entirely unrelated to the stated purpose, making the actual function ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, preconditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, and the description does not mention side effects, return format, read-only behavior, or error conditions. The agent is left without any information about what happens when the tool is invoked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and free of unnecessary detail, making it concise. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence and lacks structural elements like a verb or an explanation of output, so it is not optimally structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's likely simple purpose, the description is too minimal. There is no output schema, no mention of return values, and no clarification of the odd input parameter set, leaving important context missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, many parameter descriptions are irrelevant to the stated tool purpose and appear copied from other tools (e.g., url, city, json, query). The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters relate to returning IANA timezone names, and terms like 'discarded after the check' add confusion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' conveys that the tool provides IANA timezone names, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not clearly specify whether it returns a list, validates input, or performs another operation. It gives a rough sense of purpose but remains vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as timezone, tz-asia-barnaul, or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a context but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns 'group counts only,' but it does not mention error handling, what happens if robots.txt is unavailable, or that many of its parameters are discarded. The description is silent on the unusual set of parameters, which is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 optional inputs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action and output. However, it is so terse that it omits critical context, which prevents a higher score for structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain why so many unrelated parameters exist, how they are used, what 'group counts' refers to, or any error behavior. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based solely on the description, especially with no annotations or output schema to supplement it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, and it does not explain why parameters like 'city' or 'zone' relate to fetching robots.txt. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation, but the description does not enhance it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and an output ('group counts only'). It is clear about the core action and result. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'web-fetch' or 'fetch-status', though the unique focus on robots.txt and group counts distinguishes it implicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list is extensive, and the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts. An agent would have no basis to choose this tool over similar fetch-based tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose important behavioral details such as return values, errors, side effects, or how parameters are handled. 'Key discarded' is vague and does not clarify the tool's runtime behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and contains no filler. However, the second sentence 'Key discarded' is cryptic and adds little value, slightly reducing the score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what 'shape' validation entails, or what the caller should expect in return.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes nine parameters with individual descriptions, but none of them correspond to a Jira issue key. Parameters like city, feed, host, and zone appear unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, making it nearly impossible to know how to invoke the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks a Jira issue key shape, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Key discarded' is a bit ambiguous but does not obscure the primary purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/validation tools, such as github-repo-shape or wiki-title-ok. The description provides no selection criteria or contextual hints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Body discarded,' which gives a tiny hint but omits return format, side effects, permissions, and how the various parameters are handled. This is grossly insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one short sentence, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to convey the tool's actual breadth or important details, so the brevity is harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's general behavior, what it returns, or how it differs from siblings. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately, so the tool meets the minimum bar without the description compensating.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), but the input schema exposes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), so the stated purpose is misleading about the tool's actual scope. It doesn't clarify that this is a generic check tool covering many input kinds.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (fetch-status, domain-shape, validate-json, etc.). The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions that values are discarded, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is side-effect free, what happens with invalid JSON, or whether any input is persisted or modified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with both sentences carrying information; however, it is so terse that it omits important usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain the return value, error behavior, or which parameter is required, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are largely unrelated to the stated purpose and the relevant 'json' parameter is described as validation rather than key counting, so parameter semantics are confusing rather than helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object') but does not specify which of the nine optional parameters supplies the JSON, and the 'json' parameter description says 'validate' rather than count, creating ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided; there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like validate-json or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses one behavioral aspect (query and fragment are dropped) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or how invalid inputs are handled. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. It states the core behavior and a key transformation in a compact, well-structured manner.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters all optional and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not identify the input URL parameter, explain the other parameters, specify the return format, or handle edge cases. The tool is effectively unusable from the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description says nothing about parameters. The schema descriptions are present but nonsensical for a URL normalizer (e.g., 'ref' as 'Git ref name', 'city' as 'City name'), providing no useful meaning. The description fails to clarify which parameter is the URL or how the others relate to the operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies what is dropped ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from generic URL tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or context where this normalization is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states that no browser is launched, but says nothing about network requests, return format, side effects, or what happens with the various parameters. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks essential context and reads more like a stub than a purposeful, compact definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or any usage context. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is individually documented. However, the tool description does not explain how parameters relate to the purpose or which ones are primary; it only mentions 'URL' implicitly. Since the schema already carries parameter meaning, the description adds no value, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a generic action ('check whether a URL can be opened') but does not define what 'opened' means (HTTP reachability, syntax validity, etc.) nor how it differs from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The 'No browser is launched' note is a behavioral clue but not a purpose clarification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name and vague description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Mentions that the query is discarded, providing some transparency about side effects. However, it omits the core behavior of what is returned or how other parameters are handled (though the schema describes them as discarded). With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no padding. The purpose is placed upfront, and the discard note is brief. It is efficient and easy to parse, though a few additional details could be included without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but the description is missing the return value specification. It also does not explain why there are nine unrelated parameters, leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool and what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a descriptive comment, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema; it only reinforces the query's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Count characters in a search query') and the resource ('search query'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools. However, it does not mention what the function returns (e.g., the integer length), slightly reducing clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory-key-count' or 'hn-front-count'. The description is purely declarative and does not indicate conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Parameter descriptions mention values being 'discarded' but do not explain the tool's actual behavior, output, or side effects. With no output schema or annotations, an agent cannot predict what the tool will do.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary wording. The schema descriptions are also compact, though the nine unrelated optional parameters add noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool lacks an output schema, examples, return-value notes, edge cases, or usage context. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to successfully call a 'catalog' tool with nine optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have schema descriptions, many noting they are discarded, which gives some semantic clarity. However, the parameters appear unrelated to an HTTP status catalog and the description does not connect them to the tool's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is a noun phrase rather than an action: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It does not state what the tool actually does, returns, or how it should be invoked.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. There is no selection criteria, condition, or example of appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded' — telling the agent that all input is ignored. With no annotations provided, this carries the full burden and is genuinely useful. It could add that the output is a fixed template regardless of input, but 'Prompt discarded' largely covers the critical behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, and the critical behavioral caveat ('Prompt discarded') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that returns a fixed template and discards input, this is nearly complete. The agent knows what it does and that input is irrelevant. It could briefly describe the template's contents, but with no output schema and a trivial fixed-return behavior, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by stating 'Prompt discarded,' which tells the agent that none of the 9 parameters actually affect the result. This prevents the agent from wasting effort populating parameters that will be ignored — meaningfully more than the schema alone provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return a three-step thinking template') that aligns with the tool name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous even without sibling contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or state conditions for selection. The only implicit usage signal is the name 'think-steps' suggesting a reasoning aid, but that is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It does not mention side effects or lack thereof (e.g., read-only nature), nor does it clarify that parameters like 'ref', 'url', or 'query' are ignored. This could mislead an agent into thinking those parameters affect the time calculation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is easy to read and does not include fluff. However, the brevity may be excessive given the unusual parameter list, but as a standalone summary it is well-formed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of nine parameters, none required, and many seemingly unrelated to timezone, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the tool handles these parameters or which ones are actually used, leaving a significant gap in the tool's operational context. The contextually complete description would need to acknowledge the disregarded parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes descriptions for all parameters, but most are irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'ref' is a Git ref, 'url' is a web address, 'city' is a weather hint). The only meaningful parameter, 'zone', is described adequately, but the rest add noise. The description does not explain why these unrelated parameters exist or how they are handled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related tools like 'utc-time' or 'tz-asia-barnaul' in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a one-line statement with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or which parameters actually matter. For instance, it does not clarify that many listed parameters are irrelevant to timezone lookup.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only states that it returns the current time. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, parameter handling, or restrictions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it's far too minimal to be transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It doesn't front-load critical usage information and provides no structure to guide the agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is completely inadequate for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema. It doesn't explain which parameters are used, what the output format is, or how to call it correctly, leaving the agent without essential information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds nothing. It fails to clarify which of the 9 parameters are relevant, especially the 'zone' parameter which is described as 'IANA timezone name' while the description implies a fixed timezone, creating ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it returns the current local time in Asia/Barnaul. This is specific and unambiguous, but it doesn't mention how it differs from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', though the fixed timezone name makes the purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent has no direction on selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the short description does not disclose that all input parameters appear to be discarded or that the tool likely ignores them. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' but the overall behavior is not transparent from the description alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with no fluff. However, it omits crucial context about the parameters and return format, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has nine specified parameters but no explanation of how they relate to the output. There is no return schema, no example, and no mention of whether parameters are required or ignored, leaving the tool extremely incomplete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter descriptions are individually explicit about being discarded, but they do not align with the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. The schema suggests a generic validation tool rather than a timestamp tool, leaving the parameters semantically confusing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly identifies the tool's primary output as a UTC timestamp. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like timezone or iana-zones, though it does not explicitly state that input parameters are ignored.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or tz-asia-barnaul. The presence of nine optional parameters with unrelated descriptions makes it even less clear when this should be called.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a behavioral detail, but it fails to specify the return value or any side effects. Without an output schema or mention of a boolean or result object, the agent cannot predict what the tool will return, limiting behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary details. The structure is straightforward, placing the main action first and the extra behavioral note second, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context: it does not mention what constitutes valid JSON, how the 'json' parameter should be passed, or what the tool returns. The presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema further compounds the incompleteness, leaving the agent without sufficient information to select and invoke the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds little to the parameter schema by referring to a 'body' that does not correspond to any parameter name. The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, but most are irrelevant to JSON validation (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city'), and the description does not clarify that the 'json' parameter is the intended input. This creates confusion rather than resolving it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Check whether') and the resource ('a body is valid JSON'), which immediately conveys the tool's core function. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous and does not map directly to any parameter name, leaving slight uncertainty about what input is being validated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this validation is appropriate, nor does it differentiate it from sibling tools with similar purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description implies a read-only operation (fetching temperature), but it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or the fact that many supplied parameters appear to be ignored. Since no annotations are present, the description bears the full burden and falls short.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, but the overall tool definition is bloated with nine unrelated optional parameters. The brevity of the description is good, but the surrounding schema structure undermines clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The definition lacks essential context: no output format is described, the parameter list is almost entirely irrelevant to the stated purpose, and there is no explanation of how the tool handles extraneous inputs. This is far from complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter descriptions are contradictory and unhelpful. For example, the 'city' parameter is described as 'discarded after the call,' directly conflicting with the stated purpose, and most other parameters (ref, url, feed, json, path, etc.) have descriptions that suggest they are irrelevant. This actively misleads rather than clarifies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's core purpose: returning the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It names a specific resource and action, but it does not address the many unrelated parameters in the input schema, which could confuse an agent about what the tool actually uses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor which parameters are relevant. The description implies 'city' is important, but all parameters are optional and several are explicitly described as discarded, leaving usage ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly mentions that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially satisfies it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description itself is concise (one sentence). However, the overall structure is problematic: the tool exposes 9 optional parameters with nonsensical descriptions, making the input schema bloated and confusing, which undermines the conciseness of the description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters interact, which ones are mutually exclusive, or what the return value looks like beyond 'status and content type'. The mismatch between the parameters and the tool's purpose leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are clearly generic placeholders (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' for 'ref') that have no relation to fetching a URL. They mislead rather than clarify, and the tool description only mentions 'url' as relevant, leaving the other eight parameters unexplained and seemingly irrelevant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok', so the uniqueness is not established.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No conditions or scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which of the many similar tools to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions 'Title discarded after the call', which hints at data retention, but it does not clarify side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. Moreover, the schema describes parameters that are 'discarded' in unrelated contexts, creating confusion about the tool's actual behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient. However, the brevity omits critical information and the schema mismatch is not addressed, so conciseness does not contribute to clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify return values, output format, error handling, or how the title is supplied. Combined with the irrelevant schema, an agent cannot infer proper usage or expected behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 9 schema parameters have generic, unrelated descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'City name') that do not connect to the stated purpose of checking a Wikipedia title. There is no parameter for 'title', so the semantics are completely misaligned and misleading.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear purpose ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema contains no 'title' parameter—only unrelated generic fields like ref, url, city, feed, etc. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and undermines clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no explanation of how to pass the title, when this tool should be used, any prerequisites, or example calls. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.